Club Sale | It’s done!

[Grande]

Because you went on a sanctimonious rant and then asked an obvious question. Everyone understands what and who they are, but this line in the sand you're drawing is completely imaginary. Also for what its worth, the people who have died at the hand of the Qatari regime in the entirety of its reign are about a week's worth of Iraqi citizens killed in the U.S invasion. A life is a life regardless of if the regime sanctioning the killings is authoritarian or democratic. Scary buzzwords like "dictators" or "authoritarian" don't make their human rights violations worse than those of the U.S or Britain.

I think you are confusing the dialogue I was in with someone else. I answered a question about what where the possible political motivations of the Al Thani branch in buying ManUtd. All the stuff about sanctity and lines in the sand is something you probably inferred from some other posts that you’ve read? The need for PR of the emirs of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar is related to that they want to spread out their economical interests without having to cede power or destabilize their power base by affording basic civic rights to the 80-90% of the population that make the societies they control run. These are facts, regardless of their moral status. Part of the PR programme is about making their rule and the ‘brand’ of their nations known and palatable or at least tolerable in the perception of countries they want to expand their businesses in. This is in part due to how others see them as oppressive autocracies, which they are, and which also is a relevant fact more than a moral judgement on my part in the light of this question.

A whole other matter is that I too do react morally to the emirate’s oppressive autocracies. I think evil is as good a word as any for how the emirs stick to nd uphold power, and it’s a kind of evil that has been as rife where I live as in the UK as in the Arabian peninsula. I don’t see the point of defending that kind of evil wherever it may appear.

You seem to infer that I would be okay with George Bush or Bush jr, (or any other US president for that matter) buying Man United, but this is a fantasy on your part. I would hate it and oppose it at least as vigorously as the Al Thani. I’ve also opposed the Glazers since 2005, even if they haven’t sent a lot of humans to slavery or death afaik.

Of course, when you talk about lines in the sand, all lines in the sand are imaginary. It is what is called making a stand. The world doesn’t make it for you, you decide at some point ‘this is too much, I want stand for this’. Conservatice republican aggressive capitalists in a hostile takeover crossed one such lone for me in 2005, and I don’t see why I should speak positively about it just because I couldn’t prevent it. Likewise, being controlled as a PR tool for an oppressive autocracy is yet another line to cross, and I won’t accept that willingly, powerless as I might be. I at least have the power to speak my mind about it. It’s wrong, and no amount of listing other wrongs are going to change my mind about that.

 

[Grande]

No, but if you’ve upset your neighbours for the last 15 years and they start putting bricks through your window then you’ll take the best offer and still be selling…

I would, but I’m not sure about the Galzers. To be honest I don’t think they even live in the house, and don’t seem to worry much about either the neighbours or the broken glass.

 

[alexthelion]

It’s not exactly hard hitting journalism asking the tough questions, is it. One of the guys interviewed was a professor in Doha whose quote appeared tactically interested to create separation between the bidder and the Qatari government. Another seemed to suggest his Dad has more money than his estimated net worth suggests - which is alone dodgy, but in this case it seeks to assuage the question that the bidder is himself not that wealthy because he couldn’t have accrued that much wealth in his job.

You know that's not true, how?

 

[AneRu]

It may be that there is a difference of opinion within the family, or one Glazer is trying to shaft another. For example if Glazer 3 has to sell, Glazer 1 can refuse and then Glazer 3 has to sell to him at a discounted price. Then Glazer 1 sells a year later.

I still think the sale will happen but rich families can be very toxic.

And toxicity can also go both ways, the other three could unite with Qatar whereby Qatar buys enough shares just to enable the other four to have the majority vote, call an AGM and sack the two holdouts hence the need for the two to pay generous premiums to the four, which they can't afford without sinking the club.

 

[McTerminator]

I would, but I’m not sure about the Galzers. To be honest I don’t think they even live in the house, and don’t seem to worry much about either the neighbours or the broken glass.

Fair point.

People talk about considering their loyalties if Qatar buy us. Is anyone thinking similarly about the Glazers staying? I for one hate them on a molecular level.

 

[Adnan]

So, you are saying that Rangnick's opinion on the management decision were important, but also his own management decisions (like the coaches he brought) were poor? So, why does his opinion matter again?

Sure, and how are new owners going to fix a problem in the past?

Hold on. You are telling me that you want the current management to be given a chance even with new owners. You are saying that sufficient capital has been provided in recent years.

But what is the problem again?

Rangnick's not the one who was giving his opinion but was said to be asking a question, which Fletcher answered.

New owners fixing the present would go a long way towards righting the wrongs of the past.

You asked me a question if capital was provided in the last 5 years, and I'll repeat my answer again by saying, yes Capital was provided to a banker who was making hiring and firing calls. There's the problem.

 

[Adnan]

side note: watching the U18 now. I like the look of Victor Musa. Good composure in front of the goal.

He looks a interesting player.

 

[Blood Mage]

Ten Hag doing well was always going run the risk of making the Glazers rethink their decision to sell unfortunately, but I just don't see how it makes financial sense for them to do so unless they've managed to con a hedge fund into lending them an obscene amount of money.

 

[alexthelion]

A salient question would be - where is the money coming from given that the bidder’s net worth isn’t nearly as much as the club he is seeking to buy outright. This is particularly meaningful because the bidder is linked to a nation state. Is he obtaining his funds through other elements linked to the state ?

This would make for a more compelling piece than “he’s a quiet guy whose car of choice in England is a Mini Cooper”

That's if you believe the figures quoted.

Haven't many said that his father is absolutely loaded with much more than Forbes are stating?

 

[Ottawa MLS Fan]

The six sibling have 69.9% of B voting shares which roughly divides in 11.65% each which means if all 6 siblings value the club at £5bn or $6bn plus commissions to Raine Group. Joel and Avram would have to front up 46.66% or £2.33bn or $2.9bn, the only way they could do this is borrowing the cash against collateral and then borrow again to refurbish the stadium and squad development.

They would bankrupt the club, even they are not that stupid, we are now in the final game of poker in which the Glaziers are bluffing their hand to encourage the Qataris to raise the stakes, ultimately letting the Glaziers fold their hand.

Pretty sure £5bn should do it however the Qataris will want to privately own the club and buy all the A Shares as well, I’m not sure what they are worth with the day to day fluctuation but it could cost another £1bn for them to buy these up. Then £2bn for Squad and stadium redevelopment, only a complete moron would think If they do this deal it’s not state funded.

But hey they have good relationships with the British Government, Fifa and UEFA so if they want this to happen, this will happen.

I wrote a similar post a few days ago with my opinion of why Avram and Joel couldn’t afford to buy out their siblings. However, I forgot one important point. Because of the A/B shares, they don’t need to.

Their approach could be as simple as the Elliott vultures buying out the four Glazers that want to sell. Those B shares would revert to A shares with 1/10 the voting power. Avram and Joel would own about 22% of the shares, but they would still have absolute control of United because they are the only B shares left.

It isn’t obvious to me why Elliott would want 46% of United unless there was some plan that would take them to control, and this would still leave all of the infrastructure funding issues, but it is possible.

I feel sick.

 

[georgipep]

Rangnick's not the one who was giving his opinion but was said to be asking a question, which Fletcher answered.

And you are quoting it because of Rangnick's opinion on the answer, right?

New owners fixing the present would go a long way towards righting the wrongs of the past.

This is just wrong, on every level.

You asked me a question if capital was provided in the last 5 years, and I'll repeat my answer again by saying, yes Capital was provided to a banker who was making hiring and firing calls. There's the problem.

Is capital still being provided to a banker?

Are you happy with the current management and willing to give them a chance?

What is the problem?

 

[Adnan]

Can you substantiate this with any evidence?

And how is that different from Glazers making changes by moving on Woodward and installing new management?

Cook being moved on after a season from the football side of the club and being replaced by Brian Marwood in 2009, is very different to Woodward being allowed to make mistakes for 10 years.

Can you tell me who the new management are and how the new management is structured? I don't believe you know this.

 

[georgipep]

Cook being moved on after a season from the football side of the club and being replaced by Brian Marwood in 2009, is very different to Woodward being allowed to make mistakes for 10 years.

How is it different? The Glazers had different objectives (extracting capital from the club) and thus kept Woodward for a longer period. Now they've changed their course and put in place new management.

Can you tell me who the new management are and how the new management is structured? I don't believe you know this.

I learn about our management structure and changes mostly from you. I follow you on redcafe and find your posts quite insightful, with some exceptions.

When I refer to management in the last few exchanges we've had, I mean Arnold and Murthough, mostly, as the important decision makers.

 

[devilish]

A- The Glazers plan was always that of buying the club on cheap only to sell it for billions later on.

B- Talks of the Glazers seeking external investment had been around for years. They often switched from some of the Glazers wanting out right to the club seeking a cash injection to invest into the stadium

C- Financial wise everything points to an anno horribilis for the club. Interest rates had gone up which is bad news for heavily indebted clubs, we made a 115m loss last year and the Glazers weren't able to take their dividends. Arnold had claimed that there is no guarantees that there's significant money to be invested into the transfer market for next summer. All of that is happening in a scenario were Arsenal, Newcastle, Chelsea and City will probably be investing a lot of money.

D- In the summer solid information came out of the Glazers talking to Apollo in a bid to seek some external investment. Those talks fizzled away into nothing. I am pretty confident that vultures like Elliott and Ares knew what was going on prior to Raine entering the fray. Yet they CHOSE to stay out of it.

E- That forced the Glazers to 'explore all options' by putting the club on sale. That has serious repercussions. First of all it confirmed to fans that the Glazers could be pushed out and that there are owners out there who are willing to buy the club. If they backtrack at this point then the consequences for the Glazer family, their minions and sponsors could and would be astronomical. Secondly they had to open the financial books for potential buyers to see. There's a hell of a lot of very sensitive information there to see. The last time we did that and the deal fell was with Knighton. Somehow he ended a United director. Ratcliffe and Qatar won't be kept at bay so easily.

F- Financially wise United aren't worth 4b-5b. Our ROI does not justify the club's price tag especially considering the huge investment needed afterwards. Thus United need to be sold for sports washing / green washing purposes. Considering that Saudi and Abu Dhabi already have an EPL club and Dubai seem not interested in one then it would be stupid from the Glazers to piss Qatar off. Meanwhile there are not many companies in the greenwashing business who would be interested in United that are bigger then INEOS. I doubt that Hoggish Greedly can afford us.

G- If the deal fall then there will be plenty of bruised ego and reputation being hurt. Raine group will be desperate to seal this deal to consolidate its role as the GOAT in its sector. Most of the fees will probably be tied to a successful sell which means that they might end up losing out on a big fat bonus on top to a bruised reputation after failing to sell the biggest brand name in football. The Qataris are desperate to ride on the WC momentum by buying the biggest club in the world. If that fails because of their inability to spend the money needed to buy the club then they will look like idiots. These are proud people who hate looking like idiots. Ratcliffe would not want to lose out on his childhood club. There's a limit to how many clubs the guy can pretend to support. Thus he'll do his best to get hold of the club. If they fail then they'll first slander the club (leaks etc) and then they'll probably buy other EPL clubs as that's their agenda. That mean that United will end up facing more competition from clubs with richer owners and with less buyers available to sell in the future.

H - We're at the very early stages of negotiations. In fact it not too late for newcomers to come in a bid for the club. Anyway Ratcliffe, Jassim and any potential buyer has yet/or had just have had access to the data room. In such circumstances than expect that the initial bid would be low. These people has not become rich by throwing money in the dumpster and they also have no clue what is in store for them (financial details etc). If the initial bid is not accepted (which will probably be the case) then these people will have to go back to Stakeholders (banks?, Emir? potential business partners? etc) to try and figure a way how to increase the bid. Thus this process will be long and tedious.

I- It makes sense for potential sellers to at least pretend a reluctance to sell the business. Else they will be lowballed big time. That is achieved with potential sellers showing sudden interest in the day to day running of the club and by leaking to the media that they aren't really keen of selling it.

J- From how things stand United are losing money. Thus expect more and more leaks of the Glazers suddenly considering new offers for minor shareholders in a bid to kick potential buyers to action.

 

[AneRu]

I wrote a similar post a few days ago with my opinion of why Avram and Joel couldn’t afford to buy out their siblings. However, I forgot one important point. Because of the A/B shares, they don’t need to.

Their approach could be as simple as the Elliott vultures buying out the four Glazers that want to sell. Those B shares would revert to A shares with 1/10 the voting power. Avram and Joel would own about 22% of the shares, but they would still have absolute control of United because they are the only B shares left.

It isn’t obvious to me why Elliott would want 46% of United unless there was some plan that would take them to control, and this would still leave all of the infrastructure funding issues, but it is possible.

I feel sick.

Which is why Elliot wont do it because they would be left with worthless shares. And also why the other four would sooner oust Joel and Avram from power at OT than sell their shares for a discounted rate. With 47%, if push comes to shove they can withdraw their support for their brothers and launch a boardroom coup.

 

[red thru&thru]

The six sibling have 69.9% of B voting shares which roughly divides in 11.65% each which means if all 6 siblings value the club at £5bn or $6bn plus commissions to Raine Group. Joel and Avram would have to front up 46.66% or £2.33bn or $2.9bn, the only way they could do this is borrowing the cash against collateral and then borrow again to refurbish the stadium and squad development.

They would bankrupt the club, even they are not that stupid, we are now in the final game of poker in which the Glaziers are bluffing their hand to encourage the Qataris to raise the stakes, ultimately letting the Glaziers fold their hand.

Pretty sure £5bn should do it however the Qataris will want to privately own the club and buy all the A Shares as well, I’m not sure what they are worth with the day to day fluctuation but it could cost another £1bn for them to buy these up. Then £2bn for Squad and stadium redevelopment, only a complete moron would think If they do this deal it’s not state funded.

But hey they have good relationships with the British Government, Fifa and UEFA so if they want this to happen, this will happen.

I'm sorry but this thread makes too much sense and is backed up with logic from actual figures given, as representatives.

I'm not too sure you know how thia thread works? You have to be hysterical and emotionally driven. You should not be using logic and sense.

Half a mind to report you!

 

[Adnan]

And you are quoting it because of Rangnick's opinion on the answer, right?

This is just wrong, on every level.

Is capital still being provided to a banker?

Are you happy with the current management and willing to give them a chance?

What is the problem?

Do you need Rangnick or Fletcher to tell you that handing out contracts has been a total mess under the Glazers? I'm telling you this.

There isn't much capital to provide so it's hard to say until the new people are backed.

Yes i'm willing to give them a chance but i'd like to see the back of the Glazers.

 

[glazed]

At the heart of it the Glazers need competition to drive up the price. Let's assume INEOS are the only competition and they have pretty much said they won't go above 4b. To drive the Qataris above 5b there needs to be another competitor. So they invented one called Avram Glazer.

 

[Adnan]

How is it different? The Glazers had different objectives (extracting capital from the club) and thus kept Woodward for a longer period. Now they've changed their course and put in place new management.

I learn about our management structure and changes mostly from you. I follow you on redcafe and find your posts quite insightful, with some exceptions.

When I refer to management in the last few exchanges we've had, I mean Arnold and Murthough, mostly, as the important decision makers.

It's different because Cook removed himself from within the football structure and took up his usual role on the board with Brian Marwood heading the football side of the club. Marwood is a experienced football administrator. And that happened after just one year of Cook being in charge of the football side of the club. It took Woodward almost a decade to do the same when Murtough was given a similar role to Marwood.

 

[Suv666]

Just because the Glazers will be at the game you lot are convinced they aren't selling?

 

[AlPistacho]

Latching onto the club getting to a final is pretty disgusting by Avram Glazer especially when they weren’t there for the Munich memorial. Also heard Rooney praising the Glazers, also said they signed him which is false.

 

[georgipep]

Do you need Rangnick or Fletcher to tell you that handing out contracts has been a total mess under the Glazers? I'm telling you this.

Player recruitment and retainment have mostly been in the remit of the manager, until Murthough's assignment. That has been a continuation of the model we had with Ferguson.

I think you can see how the Glazers thought that was their best option, considering the success we've had with him.

Now, you have been speculating that the last summer transfer window has been led by the manager mostly because the scouting structures have been revamped, right? But you expect that Murthough and the new scouting leaders will take over in the coming windows, correct?

So, if that is the expectation under the current owners and management, what is the problem?

There isn't much capital to provide so it's hard to say until the new people are backed.

Yes i'm willing to give them a chance but i'd like to see the back of the Glazers.

If the problem is that there isn't much capital to provide, would you be against the Glazers selling a minor share to raise capital (although that's not the likely purpose of the capital that would be raised)?

I am not a fan of the Glazers but prefer them any day of the week over Qatar/Saudi owners. And compared to INEOS, I'm not sure there will be a huge improvement in the way the club is managed.

SJR is a businessman and I am struggling to see the ROI on putting huge amounts of capital into the club when the horizon for returns is quite far into the future.

 

[georgipep]

It's different because Cook removed himself from within the football structure and took up his usual role on the board with Brian Marwood heading the football side of the club. Marwood is a experienced football administrator. And that happened after just one year of Cook being in charge of the football side of the club. It took Woodward almost a decade to do the same when Murtough was given a similar role to Marwood.

You are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to Cook and Woodward. You must realize that the City owners and the Glazers had (and still have) very different intentions and objectives when it comes to their ownership of the clubs. I would argue that Woodward was successfully delivering what the Glazers expected of him. Until recently when the focus shifted towards sporting performance and thus the transition towards Arnold and Murtough began.

 

[DevilRed]

Relax. This is all just posturing and negotiation.

You don't appoint an investment bank to run this sales process without moving forwards with it in some form or other.

They need the investment, but right now they likely will have to take a full sale as nobody wants to be a partial investor and peg their fortunes with the inept glazer siblings.

 

[DevilRed]

He loves the club:

Avram Glazer plans to attend Manchester United’s Carabao Cup final against Newcastle

nodoubutaboutit

Helps that its in London and not Manchester.

They wouldn't want to step foot outside of the capital and the luxury it accommodates them with.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

Just because the Glazers will be at the game you lot are convinced they aren't selling?

I’ve somewhat been in the camp of they weren’t going to sell and were only interested in investment. Told myself this as to not be disappointed because it has always been said , just mostly ignored that they wanted to keep United, they were looking for potential investors then the “possibility” of a possible sale is available. Testing the waters.

With the Elliot group or whatever they are called offering investment that is the worst possible scenario to me. The team looks like it’s on the up, right manager, feel good factor, competing. If I was in their shoes I’d be reluctant to sell at this moment, especially if some Hedge fund is available to finance a refurb of a stadium and training ground.

 

[AlPistacho]

Relax. This is all just posturing and negotiation.

You don't appoint an investment bank to run this sales process without moving forwards with it in some form or other.

They need the investment, but right now they likely will have to take a full sale as nobody wants to be a partial investor and peg their fortunes with the inept glazer siblings.

Full sale = £5b and above. Investment = £1b to £2b.

Rain Group still get paid a very good fee regardless. If anything, just speculation, for the long term “investment” might be better for them as it might keep a relationship with United for decades. Whereas if it’s a sale their involvement ends once the deal is done.

 

[Rightnr]

He loves the club:

Avram Glazer plans to attend Manchester United’s Carabao Cup final against Newcastle

nodoubutaboutit

If this is true (you've provided no source), I bloody hope he's booed before, after and during the game. And then if we lift the cup, the ratty cnut.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

I wrote a similar post a few days ago with my opinion of why Avram and Joel couldn’t afford to buy out their siblings. However, I forgot one important point. Because of the A/B shares, they don’t need to.

Their approach could be as simple as the Elliott vultures buying out the four Glazers that want to sell. Those B shares would revert to A shares with 1/10 the voting power. Avram and Joel would own about 22% of the shares, but they would still have absolute control of United because they are the only B shares left.

It isn’t obvious to me why Elliott would want 46% of United unless there was some plan that would take them to control, and this would still leave all of the infrastructure funding issues, but it is possible.

I feel sick.

But why pay north of 3.5B to have worthless shares, with no say or control of the club.

The main issue with glazers is they want money and control at the same time, which we know it's not possible now.

Either they remain with control with no money as it is now, or
They get cash but lose control of the club.

They can't have both in this period of time, no businessman can give them money without control/collateral of the club.

Already the club has debt from their 19 year back acquisition, circa around £500m, then you mean they will add more debt to United?

1. The easiest way out for glazers is to do nothing, no sale, no minority sale. - They will have zero cash in their pockets, and we proceed as it is now but crucially they remain with 100% of the club.

2. Second best option is 100% sale. - They will ALL get funds in their pockets and leave all the United problems behind.

3. Third best option is minority sale - they ,all Glazers, agree to sell 5% each of their shares. Then funds has to be invested in club operations, say player funds, training ground revamp. Stadium can be sorted after say 2-3 years.
But essentially Glazers will HAVE ZERO FUNDS in their pockets
As no sane person buying all those shares a stake at a club, will give Glazers money to eat while the club they bought is in dire need of the said resources.

4. Fourth option, is Glazer 2 they buy out the 4 Glazers. Meaning they have to pay the 4 Glazers out first, then have extra money to do Training revamp + Squad revamp. - This will need 2 Glazers to borrow first pay off the other brothers. More debt as they have zero cash.
Then more debt for the extra funds needed to upgrade the football club. - THIS will Sink the 2 Glazers into more debt, less money, more problems.

5. Fifth Option, which is the riskiest, is they all Glazers agree to source for external funding.. They put Clubs Assets as Collaterals for funds. They remain in control but Club in more debts, with a shark on its neck for loan repayment.


Even from my analogy you can see where we are, we've all heard Glazers tried to have investments last year etc. It has been well documented that option number 5 & 4 were tried and they failed.

Now the only viable options remaining is number 3,2,1 in that order..

Now the problem with option number 3 is, Glazers will lose the 2 basic important aspect in all this... They WILL NOT HAVE personal funds for themselves and STILL they will have sold a stake of the club. Meaning No money in their pockets and less of control of the club.

The only options are 100% sale or they remain 100%.
There is no in between. The club can not carry new debt, and Glazers have no money to pump to the club.

 

[sglowrider]

If this is true (you've provided no source), I bloody hope he's booed before, after and during the game. And then if we lift the cup, the ratty cnut.

Link provided.

 

[Adnan]

Player recruitment and retainment have mostly been in the remit of the manager, until Murthough's assignment. That has been a continuation of the model we had with Ferguson.

I think you can see how the Glazers thought that was their best option, considering the success we've had with him.

Now, you have been speculating that the last summer transfer window has been led by the manager mostly because the scouting structures have been revamped, right? But you expect that Murthough and the new scouting leaders will take over in the coming windows, correct?

So, if that is the expectation under the current owners and management, what is the problem?

If the problem is that there isn't much capital to provide, would you be against the Glazers selling a minor share to raise capital (although that's not the likely purpose of the capital that would be raised)?

I am not a fan of the Glazers but prefer them any day of the week over Qatar/Saudi owners. And compared to INEOS, I'm not sure there will be a huge improvement in the way the club is managed.

SJR is a businessman and I am struggling to see the ROI on putting huge amounts of capital into the club when the horizon for returns is quite far into the future.

I have been posting about the new structure being in place for the summer window of 2023. I expect Murtough and the recruitment team to work with ten Hag to plan for the transfer window. And there's been reports about ten Hag passing down instructions for the recruitment team. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sign Jurrien Timber if ten Hag wants him and everyone agrees.

I disagree, i'd take SJR over the Glazers everyday of the week.

 

[georgipep]

I have been posting about the new structure being in place for the summer window of 2023. I expect Murtough and the recruitment team to work with ten Hag to plan for the transfer window. And there's been reports about ten Hag passing down instructions for the recruitment team. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sign Jurrien Timber if ten Hag wants him and everyone agrees.

I disagree, i'd take SJR over the Glazers everyday of the week.

I'd take SJR too. Just not Qatar/Saudi owners.

 

[LordSpud]

If this is true (you've provided no source), I bloody hope he's booed before, after and during the game. And then if we lift the cup, the ratty cnut.

He will be on the pitch with the players like Leicester's owner did when they won the FA Cup last time.

 

[Appletonred]

At this point, and to alleviate anymore debt being loaded onto Manchester United, perhaps the government need to intervene, something perhaps they should have done 18 years ago.

 

[Adnan]

You are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to Cook and Woodward. You must realize that the City owners and the Glazers had (and still have) very different intentions and objectives when it comes to their ownership of the clubs. I would argue that Woodward was successfully delivering what the Glazers expected of him. Until recently when the focus shifted towards sporting performance and thus the transition towards Arnold and Murtough began.

I'm comparing Cook and Woodward as non footballing executives who ended up playing the role of the DoF. The difference was that Cook removed himself from the role and Woodward didn't for almost a decade which was costly for the club. Woodward's role delivering success for the owners didn't need to overlap with him playing the role of the DoF.

 

[Grande]

Fair point.

People talk about considering their loyalties if Qatar buy us. Is anyone thinking similarly about the Glazers staying? I for one hate them on a molecular level.

If a fascist power occupies my community, I don’t abandon my community. I might be driven into exile, but I wont turn on my community.

To be clear, both Glazers and Al Thani are such powers.

 

[TheReligion]

He will be on the pitch with the players like Leicester's owner did when they won the FA Cup last time.

So you’re just WUMing then

 

[georgipep]

I'm comparing Cook and Woodward as non footballing executives who ended up playing the role of the DoF. The difference was that Cook removed himself from the role and Woodward didn't for almost a decade which was costly for the club. Woodward's role delivering success for the owners didn't need to overlap with him playing the role of the DoF.

Woodward has never been DoF and you know that very well. Our entire structure lacked a DoF or equivalent.
This has been recognised as untenable and thus Murtough is where he is now. We don't know since when has this been in the making.

 

[Rightnr]

Link provided.

Ah, apologies. Didn't realise the huge font was a link as well

 

[Adnan]

Woodward has never been DoF and you know that very well. Our entire structure lacked a DoF or equivalent.
This has been recognised as untenable and thus Murtough is where he is now. We don't know since when has this been in the making.

In the absence of a DoF, the football manager is the DoF. And in the event a manager being sacked, the CEO has to take up the role. And that's what kept happening with Woodward sacking managers but not installing a DoF. Richard Arnold it seems has learnt from Woodward's mistakes and is taking a hands off approach, which imo is very sensible.